EPT
Bashiok outlines possible Global Play - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
| ||
|
RumZ
United States956 Posts
Micro-transactions. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4822 Posts
On June 17 2010 23:30 Go0g3n wrote: 1. They are seriously concerned about excessive ping and negative response from all the new players, simply put, - Blizzard will add a "Play with your friends from all over the world" sticker to the game, ppl will buy it, and will realize that Japan vs Latvia doesn't feel playable ping-wise. The technology isn't still there yet? | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On June 17 2010 23:52 kadaver_BB wrote: Did they even hint at monthly fees? I did not see any kind of post that would imply this. No, there was no direct "we will charge". To me, it is the way it was worded. I bolded the words below, that, to me, seem to indicate that they will at least do a trial-pay sort of thing, and are interested in charging for it. This is speculative. Admittedly so. Think, however, of the way this COULD HAVE BEEN WORDED if it was going to be free. Here we go. On June 17 2010 Bashiok wrote: Getting people online, playing and interacting is obviously the overall goal for the Battle.net platform, and that includes allowing people to play across regional boundaries as they have in the past. Unfortunately, there are a multitude of challenges we have to overcome due to the unique regional account and billing options that didn't exist in the past. But those hurdles aren't insurmountable, and we are looking into solutions that will allow interested players to obtain access to other regional versions without having to buy another full copy of the game. Those solutions are something we're currently planning to have available through Battle.net Account Management within the first few months of StarCraft II's release. Before that solution is implemented though, you're correct in that you'd need to purchase a US copy of the game on launch day to play in the US region. My interpretations, bolded words only. Keeping it simple. -Allow: It's an option. It's not something we will just "give players". I allow you to buy this from my store. -Billing options that didn't exist in the past: Why would billing options be relevant to cross-realm play? There is no indirect link here. This is a very direct link. -allow interested players to obtain access: This one isn't even obscured wording. Again, "allow". 'interested players', i.e. a select group of players. Interest, demonstrated by cash. 'Obtain', as in, not for everybody by default. 'Access', as in, you will require it. You don't just get this feature. -without having to buy another full copy of the game: That's the part you're supposed to focus on as a typical consumer. That's where Blizzard throws in what I like to call "marketing sprinkles". That's the clever part. You won't have to pay another $60. Just another $10 per month. (Oh, and what are marketing sprinkles, you ask? Well, cookies with sprinkles always cost more, even though they don't add any utility to the item. Hey, watch this. This part of the sentence, ***LIKE SPRINKLES!!!, was there to distract you. See what I did there?) -Available through Battle.net Account Management: Similar to billing options above. Why would this feature have ANY relation to cross-realm features? There is no indirect link. Only the one with your Visa card tied to it. Edited for clarity, and because I missed one of my bolds the first time through. Oh, and to add some delicious, delicious sprinkles. | ||
|
Rorschach
United States623 Posts
On June 18 2010 00:01 InfiniteIce wrote: No, there was no direct "we will charge". To me, it is the way it was worded. I bolded the words below, that, to me, seem to indicate that they will at least do a trial-pay sort of thing, and are interested in charging for it. This is speculative. Admittedly so. Think, however, of the way this COULD HAVE BEEN WORDED if it was going to be free. Here we go. My interpretations, bolded words only. Keeping it simple. -Allow: It's an option. It's not something we will just "give players". I allow you to buy this from my store. -Billing options that didn't exist in the past: Why would billing options be relevant to cross-realm play? There is no indirect link here. This is a very direct link. -allow interested players to obtain access: This one isn't even obscured wording. Again, "allow". 'interested players', i.e. a select group of players. Interest, demonstrated by cash. 'Obtain', as in, not for everybody by default. 'Access', as in, you will require it. You don't just get this feature. -Available through Battle.net Account ManagementSimilar to billing options above. Why would this feature have ANY relation to cross-realm features? There is no indirect link. Only the one with your Visa card tied to it. God thank you for pointing the obvious! (not being sarcastic here) Its not far fetched to think that blizz is going to try and capitalize on this feature we all want.... | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
On June 17 2010 07:56 RodrigoX wrote: Day9 wins again. Look at the day9 interview by the frenchies and his clairvoyance is amazing. Bashiok announced this long ago on the D3 forums (which is why nobody saw it). He said Crossrealm would come in the future but not at launch, which is fleshed out the above statement. Not to knock Day[9] but he isn't clairvoyant, just observant. And if they decide to charge for this and public chatrooms and whatever else we've been desiring, all I have to say is that SC2 will probably become the most pirated game of all time. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
And if they decide to charge for this and public chatrooms and whatever else we've been desiring, all I have to say is that SC2 will probably become the most pirated game of all time. or at least the pressure for groups to pirate it will be grand. | ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
On June 17 2010 22:05 Half wrote: I seriously don't get the logic of pre-emptively defending a corperations right to charge you more money. I mean, I have some serious respect for almost everyone who works at Blizzard, I'm a huge blizzard fan, and doing what you're doing is just absurd and counterproductive. Even on the off chance that Blizzard is actually having an extremely tough time making ends meet (which is extremely unlikely), bitching about a price hike is almost always a valid consumer complaint unless you're like fighting nazis or something. It falls on the shoulders of the company to defend this kind of action, not the shoulder of fans. I'm not sure anyone is defending it. I certainly am not. I'm just saying I can totally see them doing it because of all the extra crap they're charging for in WoW now. Expecting it and defending the decision are two different things. | ||
|
nyshak
Germany132 Posts
On June 17 2010 23:53 InfiniteIce wrote: My point is that, when people post things such as Nyshak's posts' contents, those same people are giving Blizzard more and more incentive to stray from the Blizzard we all love (the free, awesomely featured BNet) to the more profitable model consisting of "Here's your anal lube sir, please bend over" *Note there may be a small fee added to your monthly bill for excess lube usage*. That was not my intention. Plus, I don't think a company needs anyone on an internet forum to give them more incentive to increase their profits. They have shareholders for that. I tried to explain why Blizzard is being reasonable out of their point of view and because of that, how futile it is to just shout at them how much they suck etc. Instead we have to show them that they are wrong or that there are better, more consumer oriented ways to increase the financial success of SC2. We should not be posting that this (pay-to-use system) is good, or acceptable. I only intended to outline why Nyshak's way of thinking is off-target, if he wants to exercise his full consumer rights of not paying for things that he doesn't want. I did not say it was good, I said (or tried to say) that it was reasonable - like in rational thinking. You know, that thing economists in suits tend to favor hehe. And before you mention it: yes economists believe rational thinking is good. Its their mantra really, homo oeconomicus. I however, don't like to think thats all there is to us. I wanted to show that, overly simplified, Blizzard should as a company try to make money. We, as consumers, should pay for things that we want to pay for. I do not want to pay for basic features. We're pretty much on the same page here. Except that its up for discussion what a "basic" feature is. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
We're pretty much on the same page here. Except that its up for discussion what a "basic" feature is. Everything that was in WC3 for free, should be free in SC2. Infact, if you go back to last years Blizzcon I think you can even find a quote saying EXACTLY that. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 18 2010 03:25 FrozenArbiter wrote: Everything that was in WC3 for free, should be free in SC2. Infact, if you go back to last years Blizzcon I think you can even find a quote saying EXACTLY that. http://www.sc2blog.com/2009/08/24/blizzcon-2009-battle-net-2-0-and-the-galaxy-editors-hour/ I'm rewatching the presentation now. They talked about having Guest mode, which should be the basis of LAN, but that hasn't been seen quite yet. Unsure if there are other videos/images of the presentation from last year's blizzcon. If people have links, link em, I'm honestly really curious. I was there, but I don't remember precisely at this point. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
-Billing options that didn't exist in the past: Why would billing options be relevant to cross-realm play? There is no indirect link here. This is a very direct link. This is explained very directly throughout the thread. Different regions have different price points. So if they allowed open cross realm play, I could get a 30$ version from China, download a US language pack, then play on US servers having payed 30$ less then everyone else. Maybe I was unclear or a misinterpretation was in play. I wasn't trying to imply that they SHOULDN'T be trying to maximize profit. They are, as I stated, legally OBLIGATED to do so. I can't believe how many people say this without understanding wtf they're talking about. Companies are legally obligated to listen to stockholders. Stock prices can go up without prices going up, and viceversa. Blizzard does not have to worry about stockholders. It has none, only Activision-Blizzard does. (Established as a separate entity) In fact, this relationship is why they have stated they continue to partner up with distributors like Activision and Sierra. So they do not have to deal directly with a board of stockholders, but can do so indirectly through an executive. In fact, I can't think of a single studio that deals directly with stock holders. It is almost always done through a parent company, with varying contractual relationships. By doing this, the singular goal of "maximizing profits" will be translated into more game design friendly incarnations. The parent company will indirectly ensure that the their subsidiaries act congruent with the goal of maximizing profit. In some cases, this is just letting them do there thing. In others, it could include Production deadlines, budgeting, and even sending over there own producers to create the game. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 18 2010 03:38 Takkara wrote: http://www.sc2blog.com/2009/08/24/blizzcon-2009-battle-net-2-0-and-the-galaxy-editors-hour/ I'm rewatching the presentation now. They talked about having Guest mode, which should be the basis of LAN, but that hasn't been seen quite yet. Unsure if there are other videos/images of the presentation from last year's blizzcon. If people have links, link em, I'm honestly really curious. I was there, but I don't remember precisely at this point. I'm not sure if it was at the proper presentation or during the Q&A, but they were asked what kind of features they could expect to be micro transactions and they said something along the lines of "things that were free in previous games will continue to be free". Something like that. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 18 2010 03:46 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm not sure if it was at the proper presentation or during the Q&A, but they were asked what kind of features they could expect to be micro transactions and they said something along the lines of "things that were free in previous games will continue to be free". Something like that. That sounds familiar to me, too, so I'm trying to find it. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 18 2010 03:46 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm not sure if it was at the proper presentation or during the Q&A, but they were asked what kind of features they could expect to be micro transactions and they said something along the lines of "things that were free in previous games will continue to be free". Something like that. Any idea where to find that quote? | ||
|
Jarvs
Australia639 Posts
On June 18 2010 03:40 Half wrote: This is explained very directly throughout the thread. Different regions have different price points. So if they allowed open cross realm play, I could get a 30$ version from China, download a US language pack, then play on US servers having payed 30$ less then everyone else. /SNIP ... I get this impression from all the blueposts talking about locking the product based on its region rather than locking the account tied to the game based on IP. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Not really :/ Might have been a random interview. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
This is explained very directly throughout the thread. Different regions have different price points. So if they allowed open cross realm play, I could get a 30$ version from China, download a US language pack, then play on US servers having payed 30$ less then everyone else. I thought region was decided entirely based on what your Battle.net account was set to. I.E if I buy the game here in Sweden, but register it to my US account (I have one I used for to play the US beta servers), wouldn't the game be locked to the US servers :S? And if not - meh, if someone wants to import the game from China and pay a bunch of shipping... I just can't see this having more than a negligible effect on anything? As long as the online store is locked based on region (i.e steam - I'm european so I'm stuck paying 10€ for games you North Americans pay 10$ for, which is stupid but a fact of life). Doesn't this price difference exist for any modern game? Yet I can't think of any region importing foreign games aside from Australia, cause Australia is apparently a fucked up 3rd world country who get video games years after everyone else and have to pay twice as much  | ||
|
Ouga
Finland645 Posts
It has to be greediness more than something too hard to implement, but ball is on their hands and they really don't have to care since only top tier players REALLY care about this change, aka. top tournament players. Principle issue mostly, on good grounds, but in the end I'd be losing more than winning if I chose to not buy SC2 and boycot the whole greedy BNet2 stuff. | ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
On June 17 2010 18:46 Half wrote: This assumes that development costs need to directly reflect sales points. In which case we'd all be paying 200$ for Starcraft 2 right now. (hint: They don't because the market has grown, l2economics kid) The only relevancy is profit margin and development costs. Starcraft 2 is estimated to make 6 million in a year, development costs estimated at 60 million. That means it recoups investment three folds over from 60$ per copy sold. I can actually come up with legitimate, not completely retarded moronic arguments for why they could charge for this. I'm not going to though. Why would I? (hint: Nothing you guys said is even remotely true) Why on earth would you have the impression that Community Managers designed the game? It's like that in other games - for example, MTGO's community managers had a say. | ||
| ||
